SynthesisCancer research and treatment2017
Surrogate Endpoints in Second-Line Trials of Targeted Agents in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Literature-Based Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Cancer research and treatment, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review of meta-analyses assessing the validity of tumour response endpoints as surrogates for progression-free or overall survival in cancer.British journal of cancer · 2020Pooled it
- Risk and surrogate benefit for pediatric Phase I trials in oncology: A systematic review with meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2018Pooled it
- A framework to evaluate surrogate endpoints at the trial level: analysis in colorectal cancer.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- CodeBreaK or code blue? Assessing sotorasib's vital signs in metastatic colorectal cancer.Cancer · 2025Article
- Article
- Primary and metastatic peritoneal surface malignancies.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2021Review
- Combining Correlated Outcomes and Surrogate Endpoints in a Network Meta-Analysis of Colorectal Cancer Treatments.Cancers · 2020Article
- Observational
- Progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint of overall survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.OncoTargets and therapy · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) as surrogate endpoints of overall survival (OS) in modern clinical trials investigating the efficacy of targeted agents in the second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic search of literature pertaining to randomized phase II and III trials evaluating targeted agents as second-line treatments for mCRC was performed. The strength of the correlation between both PFS and ORR and OS was assessed based on the Pearson's correlation coefficient (R) and the coefficient of determination (R
resultsTwenty trials, including a total of 7,571 patients, met the search criteria. The median duration of post-progression survival (PPS) was 7.6 months. The median differences between experimental and control arms were 0.65 months (range, -2.4 to 3.4) for the median PFS and 0.7 months (range, -5.8 to 3.9) for the median OS. PFS and ORR showed moderate (R=0.734, R
conclusionTargeted agents investigated in the second-line treatment of mCRC provided minimal PFS gains translating into modest OS improvements. Considering both the moderate correlation between PFS and OS and the short duration of PPS, the OS should remain the preferred primary endpoint for randomized clinical trials in the second-line treatment of mCRC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.